On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 6:38 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
tl;dr: voting creates winners and losers, and losers are unhappy and
disengage.
This is exactly why Germany announced that their next presidential election
is going to eliminate voting entirely, and let the voters just
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Result: Of the 100 removals, just 3 were reverted.
You removed 100 external links and only 3 of the removals were
reverted. I don't find that very surprising. My experience with
external links is that *on average* they are
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Gwern Branwen gwe...@gmail.com wrote:
Separately, the median number of watchlisters for the 100 pages you
edited is 5.
Where is this figure coming from?
There is a redacted (no user info) table in the toolserver database
that can be used to count the number of
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Except for common sense.
Common sense says that if someone tells you what their birth name is, you
believe them, not something that's probably misinformation but which has
been multiply repeated.
Well, no. Common sense
On Mon, Dec 5, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Ken Arromdee arrom...@rahul.net wrote:
Ah, but our verifiability/reliable sources policy says that we use secondary
sources because they do fact checking. This is a secondary source,
therefore
it must do fact checking. Considering whether the secondary source
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:02 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
I can agree with this. Most articles summarise their sources, and
serve as a starting point for further reading on the topic. This
article appears to be the starting and the ending point. Sometimes
less is more.
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 3:26 PM, Carcharoth carcharot...@googlemail.com wrote:
Part of the process of improving articles involves editing them, and
that includes removing stuff as well as adding stuff. There are many
cases of articles at the featured article process (and sometimes at
the good
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 11:43 PM, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote:
None of the examples you cite are living people.
This reminds me again about a somewhat common misinterpretation of
BLP. BLP is not really motivated solely by the fact that a person is
alive, To the extent that WP:BLP
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:38 PM, Scott MacDonald
doc.wikipe...@ntlworld.com wrote:
But my point is celebrity stories in newspapers, if they use unnamed or
unattributable sources, are not reliable and should never amount to
verification.
Unfortunately, the current language of WP:V not only
Here is my attempt at a historical explanation for the way things are
at the moment.
First, mathematicians in general are often reluctant to say things
that are mostly right but formally incorrect. It's part of the culture
of the field, which was reinforced by a certain writing style that
became
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Ian Woollard ian.wooll...@gmail.com wrote:
On 04/02/2011, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a common story in the human species. First, we want to achieve a
goal. Second, we discover that we are all different[2] and that we
need some rules to organize our
On Fri, Aug 27, 2010 at 4:56 AM, WereSpielChequers
werespielchequ...@gmail.com wrote:
but as they evidently haven't sussed that Wikipedia is in truth the
encyclopaedia largely written by anonymous IP editors,
Perhaps that is true in some areas, but the articles I edit on
wikipedia (on
On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 9:51 AM, David Gerard dger...@gmail.com wrote:
Aaron Swartz found that most of the text is written by IPs, with the regulars
then formatting the heck out of it.
Like I was saying, that does not match my experience with mathematics
articles. I very rarely see significant
On Wed, Jun 16, 2010 at 12:25 AM, FT2 ft2.w...@gmail.com wrote:
Once a revision is no longer current, then whether it was
accepted, reverted, unchecked or the like in the past is immaterial.
This is not quite true. If a revision is marked as reviewed, and a
reviewer later reverts the article
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Steve Summit s...@eskimo.com wrote:
All three of these criticisms, of course, are the almost
inevitable result of some of our most strongly-held policies:
* We have no requirement that articles be written by experts in
the field; indeed we tend to discourage
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
In terms of project management (not that we do any such thing) what
conclusions to draw? We certainly have seen little cost-benefit analysis
on the FA system as a whole.
Of course individual editors do
On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 7:30 PM, Mike Pruden mikepru...@yahoo.com wrote:
Personally, I found unloading my watchlist liberating, and I would hope that
more would do the same. There's always that steady stream of vandal-fighters
to stomp out any clear vandalism that pops up.
What about edits
On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote:
Strangely enough, the flaggedrevisions feature seems to provide a lot of
what we need:
1) People don't have to watch changes as they happen, they can stumble on
them when they go to save a new change
2) Changes are
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:18 AM, Charles Matthews
charles.r.matth...@ntlworld.com wrote:
(I happen to think that starting by improving existing articles is probably a
better training,
and certainly an easier one. The question is how to motivate newcomers, to do
that or
anything else.)
The
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 9:32 AM, Bod Notbod bodnot...@gmail.com wrote:
Follow-up story from Auntie Beeb:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8382477.stm
That BBC story says,
By contrast, the Wikimedia Foundation counts only people who make
five edits or more as an editor. This gives an
On Tue, Sep 8, 2009 at 11:44 PM, Ray Saintongesainto...@telus.net wrote:
How does becoming old, and being held in only 12 libraries suddenly
cause a book to revert to primary source status?
I have seen the dual argument as well: that sources which would
certainly be counted as primary if they
21 matches
Mail list logo
